• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Was Jesus Crucified or Not?

Was Jesus crucified?


  • Total voters
    54

Dawnofhope

Non-Proselytizing Baha'i
Staff member
Premium Member
I know where Baha'is get that... it's from Abdul Baha. But, where in the NT does anything sound like the "body", meaning his followers, came to life 3 days after Jesus was killed?
Do you seriously want me to pull out all those body of Christ phrases Paul used to describe the Church? The earliest book that mentions the resurrection is Paul’s first Epistle to the Corinthians. If you want to find the origin of the resurrection myth in Christianity, look no further than 1 Corinthians 15:4-9
 

CG Didymus

Veteran Member
So you say that we dont know who wrote the gospels, all written decades after Jesus passed away, some even go to the length to say that "they inherited knowledge of the happenings from others and investigated by themselves", yet they are all inspired divinely, guided divinely, and no corruption has entered them?
There are enormous problems with Baha'is trying to explain how the Bible and other Scriptures from the other major religions are at the same time "divinely inspired" and containing no corruptions and no contradictions and then saying that the "original" message of Jesus and the other people Baha'is call manifestations have been changed. With Christianity, the only message we have of Jesus is the NT. Is it accurate? Is it the truth from God? And we trust his followers to tell us the truth? Did they take notes? Or, was their memory that great that they remembered the exact words, and the exact meaning of the words, that Jesus spoke? But they also told a story about his adventures. All the things he did.

The trick Baha'is use to make the NT fit their interpretation is to make everything that contradicts them symbolic. No there is no Satan. No literal hell. Many of the miracles were only symbolic... so a blind man was spiritually blind and then Jesus "healed" him and he saw the light. Lazarus was "spiritually" dead and Jesus raised him up into spiritual life. Jesus himself did not rise from the dead. His followers are his "spiritual" body. They came to life and started preaching the message of Jesus. And that is supposed to be the "true" meaning of the resurrection?

I don't know about you, but the main point that Christians still use today is that Jesus conquered death and is alive. And where did they get such a fool notion? The gospel stories. Unfortunately, the disciples, who are characters in the story, and the writers of those stories never told the rest of the followers... that it never happened. It was just a symbolic story. They, in fact, are His body.

God didn't let them know that information for 2000 years when finally Baha'u'llah revealed the truth about the resurrection? For 2000 years Christians have been saying and believing that Jesus is physically alive? And that is not a corruption? Baha'is say it is a wrong interpretation. But no, I'd say that the story is false and the intent was to get people to believe that Jesus rose from the dead. That's corrupt if you ask me.

There are many great things about the Baha'i Faith. They might very all have the answer that could solve the problems of the world. But, the other thing they do very well, is give mixed messages. You're asking some great questions. Keep it up. I'm learning a lot from your interactions with the various Baha'is here.
 

King Phenomenon

Well-Known Member
This is a question that is often debated by Muslims and Christians.

The Christians refer to the four gospel accounts that provide clear accounts of Christ's crucifixion. Historians, including atheists usually agree Christ was crucified. When they don't its because they don't believe Jesus existed at all.

Muslims believe Jesus wasn't crucified at all based on the following verses in the Quran.

Historicity of Jesus - Wikipedia

And [We cursed them] for their breaking of the covenant and their disbelief in the signs of Allah and their killing of the prophets without right and their saying, "Our hearts are wrapped". Rather, Allah has sealed them because of their disbelief, so they believe not, except for a few.
And [We cursed them] for their disbelief and their saying against Mary a great slander,
And [for] their saying, "Indeed, we have killed the Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, the messenger of Allah ." And they did not kill him, nor did they crucify him; but [another] was made to resemble him to them. And indeed, those who differ over it are in doubt about it. They have no knowledge of it except the following of assumption. And they did not kill him, for certain.
Rather, Allah raised him to Himself. And ever is Allah Exalted in Might and Wise.

Surah An-Nisa [4:155-158]

These verses are taken literally. Many Muslims believe that the body of Jesus was substituted and another crucified in His place.

Islamic views on Jesus' death - Wikipedia

So who is right, and why?

For what its worth, Baha'is believe Christ was crucified.
Definately not
 

CG Didymus

Veteran Member
Do you seriously want me to pull out all those body of Christ phrases Paul used to describe the Church? The earliest book that mentions the resurrection is Paul’s first Epistle to the Corinthians. If you want to find the origin of the resurrection myth in Christianity, look no further than 1 Corinthians 15:4-9
No, don't pull them out, just be honest on how Baha'is really see the Bible and NT. That it is not an historical account. Most everything Evangelical and Catholic Christians believe as literal, Baha'i say is symbolic. Therefore, Christianity doesn't even understand their own Scriptures. But, Baha'is pretend they accept the Bible and NT? No, you accept the Baha'i interpretation of them. Which is fine. Just be upfront about it. Why jump all over Muslims for believing that a body double took Jesus' place. That is very possible. More possible than believing the gospel writers wrote a fairytale about Jesus coming to life and walking, talking and eating with the disciples... and my question has always been... then why didn't they say so? Why pretend that it was literal?

I doubt very much it was ever meant to be symbolic. I think it is very possible that the early Christians needed great and tremendous miracles to convince the Greeks and Romans that their God/man was greater than the pagan gods. So why symbolic? Why not just myth and legend? Oh yeah, I forgot... that way Baha'is can say they totally believe in the Bible and NT... just not literally. Big deal, an atheist could say that also. An atheist could say they believe in the Bible, but that God is only a metaphor and isn't real.

And how are you making Paul's words in Corinthians the "origin" of the myth?
 

Dawnofhope

Non-Proselytizing Baha'i
Staff member
Premium Member
No, don't pull them out, just be honest on how Baha'is really see the Bible and NT. That it is not an historical account. Most everything Evangelical and Catholic Christians believe as literal, Baha'i say is symbolic. Therefore, Christianity doesn't even understand their own Scriptures. But, Baha'is pretend they accept the Bible and NT? No, you accept the Baha'i interpretation of them. Which is fine. Just be upfront about it. Why jump all over Muslims for believing that a body double took Jesus' place. That is very possible. More possible than believing the gospel writers wrote a fairytale about Jesus coming to life and walking, talking and eating with the disciples... and my question has always been... then why didn't they say so? Why pretend that it was literal?

I doubt very much it was ever meant to be symbolic. I think it is very possible that the early Christians needed great and tremendous miracles to convince the Greeks and Romans that their God/man was greater than the pagan gods. So why symbolic? Why not just myth and legend? Oh yeah, I forgot... that way Baha'is can say they totally believe in the Bible and NT... just not literally. Big deal, an atheist could say that also. An atheist could say they believe in the Bible, but that God is only a metaphor and isn't real.

And how are you making Paul's words in Corinthians the "origin" of the myth?

You make it sound as if all Christians take the bible literally and believe in the resurrection. They clearly don't.

_95148506_chart_resurrection_birmingham.png


Resurrection beliefs laid bare in poll

Catholics and American evangelical Christians have quite different theologies and perspectives. Catholics are much more inclined NOT to take the bible literally.

Muslims have their theories about the crucifixion and that's fine. I'm not here to tear down anybody's beliefs. I personally believe Jesus was crucified and physically died on the cross as most Christians do and see the evidence best supports that belief.

Pauls first epistle to Corinthians was thought to be written between 53-54 AD. That's at least 12 years before the first Gospel was written.

First Epistle to the Corinthians - Wikipedia

This gives weight to Paul (who never saw the resurrected Jesus as he converted well after Christ's ascension) being the origin of the resurrection narrative.
 

CG Didymus

Veteran Member
You make it sound as if all Christians take the bible literally and believe in the resurrection. They clearly don't.

_95148506_chart_resurrection_birmingham.png


Resurrection beliefs laid bare in poll

Catholics and American evangelical Christians have quite different theologies and perspectives. Catholics are much more inclined NOT to take the bible literally.

Muslims have their theories about the crucifixion and that's fine. I'm not here to tear down anybody's beliefs. I personally believe Jesus was crucified and physically died on the cross as most Christians do and see the evidence best supports that belief.

Pauls first epistle to Corinthians was thought to be written between 53-54 AD. That's at least 12 years before the first Gospel was written.

First Epistle to the Corinthians - Wikipedia

This gives weight to Paul (who never saw the resurrected Jesus as he converted well after Christ's ascension) being the origin of the resurrection narrative.
I have no problem not believing that Jesus didn't come back to life. But what did early Christianity teach? What did the gospel writers say? They believed and taught that Jesus had physically risen from the dead. If a lot of modern "Christians" doubt that, then good for them. But then they can't call themselves "Bible-believing" Christians like the Fundies do.

And Baha'is shouldn't pretend they hold the Bible and the NT sacred, that they believe in it. Baha'i believe in their own interpretation of it. Which is what? It is a book of parables? Anything that goes against modern science is symbolic? Fine, then say it. You argue that the crucifixion was historical? What do we know about it? Hmmm? What it is in the NT. Do you believe what the NT says about the crucifixion is historically accurate? I doubt it. Do Baha'is believe everything about the life of Jesus prior to the crucifixion is accurate? I doubt it. And we all know that the story after the resurrection you don't believe is historical. Even though it is told as if it is historical.

So no, Baha'is don't believe a major thing about the Bible and the NT... they are not historically accurate. Then what are they? You don't like it when I say they are religious myths and legends with tons of embellishments in them to make their God and their prophets sound beyond belief. But how different is that from what you say? That it not historical, but symbolic? Which to me sounds like you're saying that it didn't really happen, but there is a great spiritual message in the story. Yeah, great. And that story messed up millions of people for the last 2000 years, because they were taught a lie. Jesus did not rise from the dead. He is dead and buried. His followers are his "body". They came to life. No, they came to believe a false story about a risen Savior.

They would not have come "to life" knowing that Jesus was crucified, died and stayed dead. Their whole thing depended on Jesus conquering death. And I do believe Paul says something like that... that if Christ hasn't risen then they are to be pitied for believing the lie. But goes on to say that indeed, Jesus has risen. And if only in spirit, who hasn't done that? Don't Baha'is believe that everyone rises in spirit?

You do know that a lot of people like the basic tenets of the Baha'i Faith. It's just the deeper things. And Baha'is can't seem to find common ground with people that have differing beliefs. So how, again, are you supposed to unite the world? I know, I know, someday they will come to realize that all religions are one... as defined by the Baha'i Faith. Well, how's that working so far? Anyway, good luck. I still like your threads the best.
 

Dawnofhope

Non-Proselytizing Baha'i
Staff member
Premium Member
I have no problem not believing that Jesus didn't come back to life. But what did early Christianity teach? What did the gospel writers say? They believed and taught that Jesus had physically risen from the dead. If a lot of modern "Christians" doubt that, then good for them. But then they can't call themselves "Bible-believing" Christians like the Fundies do.

And Baha'is shouldn't pretend they hold the Bible and the NT sacred, that they believe in it. Baha'i believe in their own interpretation of it. Which is what? It is a book of parables? Anything that goes against modern science is symbolic? Fine, then say it. You argue that the crucifixion was historical? What do we know about it? Hmmm? What it is in the NT. Do you believe what the NT says about the crucifixion is historically accurate? I doubt it. Do Baha'is believe everything about the life of Jesus prior to the crucifixion is accurate? I doubt it. And we all know that the story after the resurrection you don't believe is historical. Even though it is told as if it is historical.

So no, Baha'is don't believe a major thing about the Bible and the NT... they are not historically accurate. Then what are they? You don't like it when I say they are religious myths and legends with tons of embellishments in them to make their God and their prophets sound beyond belief. But how different is that from what you say? That it not historical, but symbolic? Which to me sounds like you're saying that it didn't really happen, but there is a great spiritual message in the story. Yeah, great. And that story messed up millions of people for the last 2000 years, because they were taught a lie. Jesus did not rise from the dead. He is dead and buried. His followers are his "body". They came to life. No, they came to believe a false story about a risen Savior.

They would not have come "to life" knowing that Jesus was crucified, died and stayed dead. Their whole thing depended on Jesus conquering death. And I do believe Paul says something like that... that if Christ hasn't risen then they are to be pitied for believing the lie. But goes on to say that indeed, Jesus has risen. And if only in spirit, who hasn't done that? Don't Baha'is believe that everyone rises in spirit?

You do know that a lot of people like the basic tenets of the Baha'i Faith. It's just the deeper things. And Baha'is can't seem to find common ground with people that have differing beliefs. So how, again, are you supposed to unite the world? I know, I know, someday they will come to realize that all religions are one... as defined by the Baha'i Faith. Well, how's that working so far? Anyway, good luck. I still like your threads the best.

Hi CG,

We've cover much of this before. Its important to realise the Christian fundamentalists do not represent Christianity any more than Islamic fundamentalists represent Islam. They are obviously a vocal group in your country but a small minority of those who would identify as Christian where I live.

Its also important to recognise the Gospel accounts as being a theological rather than an historic narrative, Its widely understood by scholars, the New Testament does have important and useful historic information but it shouldn't be seen as a reliable source of historical information.

When the Baha'is talk about the authenticity of the Gospels we refer to the spiritual teachings and are very open that its not to be taken literally. In that way we are actually closely aligned to many Christians who don't see fundamentalism as a fair representation of their faith and will reject biblical literalism as the Baha'is do.

I continue to work at a Christian Medical Centre where one staff member who I often discus and study the Bible with, is an American woman who believes in creationism. We get along just fine. She studies the Bible one hour per day and appreciates talking to someone who also has knowledge and respect for the Bible. She has little interest in talking with atheists. I've been working at this medical Centre for nearly 8 years and am one of the longest serving volunteer doctors.

I am also the Baha'i representative of my cities interfaith council that has a predominance of Christians. I was asked to be chairman of the council this year despite having been on the council a very short time.

The way to build unity is not to focus on theological differences but work alongside others in the community in areas where we can all make real differences to peoples lives. However we also need Baha'is who can discuss the Bible with Christian apologetics as well as Hindus, Buddhists and Muslims. The spirit and manner in which such discussions take place is far more important than being able to win arguments and debates.

Just out of interest, are you still attending Baha'i meetings in your locality?
 

Muffled

Jesus in me
7. God always hears his prayers and his prayers were heard

And Jesus lifted up his eyes, and said, Father, I think thee that thou hast heard me. And I knew that thou hearest me always. (John 11:41-42)

Who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from death, and was heard in that he feared. (Hebrews 5:7)

Jesus was a pious person so this entails that his prayers would have been/were accepted and he was saved a cursed death (in terms of Torah) on the Cross.
Right, please?

Regards

I believe the prayer was "if it were possible" but of course it isn't. There is no other way to rise from the dead. One must be dead first.
 

Muffled

Jesus in me
The literary character "Jesus" was certainly crucified, sure as Luke Skywalker blew up the Death Star.

I'm not sure if the question of whether there was a historical figure that Jesus was based on and whether that historical figure was crucified matters that much.

I believe the historian Josephus testifies to the crucifixion of Jesus however I believe the Bible to be more authentic than a historic account.
 

Muffled

Jesus in me
Spiritual idea that it's better to lay down my life for my brothers and sisters.I also believe in the of laying down my life rather then being someone I'm not.In other words Jesus was true to himself.

I don't believe in using the blood of Jesus to cover my son's it's a copout way to not deal with consequences.id rather face up to my sins and deal with them.

I believe you can still do that. The issue isn't how you view your sin but how God views it.
 
Top